Short rumination on sexual harassment laws
The most interesting thing about Herman Cain’s predicament may be the spotlight it throws on the state of sexual harassment laws: awful. Sexual harassment is one of those causes of action, initially designed to tackle a real problem, that fast degenerated into a morass of medacity and “he said she said” disgreements about charges that are unprovable either way much of the time.
That’s no accident. Like most attempts to adjudicate the murkier aspects of human behavior (divorce, for example), the law is inherently incompetent at getting to fairness or clarity or truth. In addition, changes in these laws have come at the behest of political movements that are hardly unbiased, such as (obviously) feminism . In sexual harassment, the pendulum that once was parked firmly in the camp of the perpetrator is now lodged equally steadfastly (if not more so) in the domain of the accuser.
After several decades of this, I think it might be refreshing to decide, at the very least, that (a) jokes and innuendos are not actionable; (b) there should be some objective standards for what is an offense rather than mere discomfort of the accuser; and (c) the victim is not automatically always right, or even always a victim.
Speaking of which: whatever happened to personal responsibility? In other words, is the threat (or the imagined threat) of losing a job really so great that a person has no power to just say “no” to unwanted advances? That’s not a legal question, but rather a moral one.
Should Cain fade from the scene, this will remain a benefit of his time on the national stage. If he remains on the scene, we might approach a readjustment.
The common man’s sense of fairness is what ultimately defines the law he lives under.
Whenever the alleged victim gains substancial economic, or political power, over an accused without the need for hard evidence of the “crime”, there is too much room for mischief. Children claiming parental abuse is another type of situation that often leads to retaliatory embellishment, or outright fabrication by the accusor. Extra care must be exercised to insure that the situation is fully understood before making any judgements.
Journalism is the real perpetrator here. There should have been serious discussions internally at Politico along the lines of: “If true, this could be a major story. However, at this time we have no real facts, no names, no proof, no counter-side of the story, and this seems contrary to the alleged harasser’s history. In fact, even if we knew all of that the alleged victim waived her right to make a claim in exchange for money and signed a release — the alleged victim resolved this issue in a way that it can’t be discussed. We have nothing.” Then they should have been journalists and tried to find something. And if they are 100% wrong, they have no liability. There is no downside.
There should be some level of journalism malpractice. How about this — if you run an unsubstantiated story that damages a person’s reputation and can’t support the premise, that publication must run the correction for 1 year, top of the fold, everyday. Each publication would need to disclose what its level of substantiation is so its readers could make an informed decision if the publication has any standards. Then every publication would run the risk of ruining its front page for 1 year if they traffic in gossip and hurt people as a result.
The true perp is Political Correctness. The more we find it absurd, the stronger it becomes. Go to any college in the land- you will find codes of conduct that militate against anything that might cause offense. Selectively enforced of course. Anti-Jew, anti-conservative, anti-male is fine, anti-Muslim, anti-gay not.
See the Foundation for Equal Rights in Education- http://www.thefire.org.
The only case of sexual harrassment at work that I witnessed was bogus and filed by a serial complainer. She had filed numerous complaints previously about racial discrimination (she did not get considered for a job she wasn’t qualified for so it must be because of her race). The sad thing is she continued her carear of serial complaining but the man she accused was demoted without any recourse.
In sexual harassment, the pendulum that once was parked firmly in the camp of the perpetrator
It is better than 100 guilty go free than one innocent man the system must protect to be just
is now lodged equally steadfastly (if not more so) in the domain of the accuser
It is better that 100 innocent man be punished (as they are all guilty anyway) than let one guilty man go free.
judeo christian is the first one…
(most common basis is Lot and soddom and gomorrah and his debate with god)
the second is the Hegelian opposite, the anti-thesis. its also the communist formulation the many are more important than the one… “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”
the feminists and outside normalized the kind of justice they would like to see… given that the leaders think all men are guilty anyway (all men are rapists) and they believe in things like the “hostile gaze”,
the point is that no one will make sense of it unless you learn the premises they work off of… and so, once the premise is accepted, regardless of validity, like a flower the implications blossom forth and thats what all this writing and investigation and making up stuff and all that.
its like pretending vampires are real, and then spending decades working through the implications of vampires based on these premises which you blindly accept.
so the people who go to college and are in this box from 5 years old, trust that they are being taught whats real in the world. having little to cause dissonance.. they live in a different world than most people do.
this is why you guys cant understand their reasoning or how the law could change that way to that degree… or how such faulty logic can be acceptable.
you both got different educations depending on your path and the requirements (as in required studies courses)…
this is also why they look down on you… they think this different education makes them superior and that they know the truth…
unable to draw their own conclusions as this other world of fake premises is not actually real logical (its logic ‘like’) and to get their grades they have to stop paying attention to the dissonance that is obvious to most others once shown.
for instance. if you got this far, you have read that gaze thing…
how does that work with the liberated sex since child thing they push too, and slut walks and so on?
see the logic is that X leads to Y ‘just because’… or there is TONS of stuff like that gaze paragraph which is so intellectually sounding with all its references to prior writings and so on… so you better believe
and the education is also mislabled too. they have this supposedly great education, and so on… but in truth, its very narrow and very carefully constructed so that a whole bunch of stuff that would make it a broad education and give them faculties not rituals, is absent.
An Overview of Feminist Theories
http://www.english-e-corner.com/comparativeCulture/etexts/more/feminist_reader/feminism.html
if you can get through it then multiply that out by 40 years and the state funding courses and cranking out thousands… and thousands…
is it any wonder that “marriage strike” which is he male response to the SAME hostile action at home, while harrasement is the SAME hostile action at work, but now expanded out wards to common everyday outside world.
here..
How to report sexual harassment on SMRT trains
http://www.aware.org.sg/resources/information/rape/how-to-report-sexual-harassment-on-smrt-trains/
its a subtle change… but it will make the gaze illegal… (men keep your heads down)
so the whole original concept of a higher power over a lower power who can be coerced by circumstances being abused… has no place…
you see. if you gaze too long and one of these people knows this game… whammo…
and watch out, even 3rd graders know enough…
most wont read the page.. just the title.. so you wont read that harrasment and molestation are two things..
Hollaback is an international organization fighting against sexual harassment on the street… (spreading the meaning out while ignoring the other terms for it… like rude, or crass… or criminal molstation… all in one basket)
Sexual Harassment: Can It Happen In 3rd Grade?
A 3rd-grade boy`s alleged sexual remarks and repeated pinching of a girl in his class has prompted a lawsuit in Du Page County Circuit Court and added another twist to the tangle of issues surrounding sexual harassment and abuse.
now there is only one group with these ideas of reality, the common goal of the socialists, and the power to dictate behavior and law…
who knew?
the real fun part is that once that is accepted, you can go back and revision history.
now, when boys dipped girls pig tails in the ink in the schools that girls were not allowed to attend (keeping with their claims)… is now evidence of mans oppression and sexual harrasement through the ages..
you can pull out some greek text describing children teasing each other and validate the claim of mans sexual oppresion of women and enslavement.
then you gan get more money, more perks, more power, and wonder why there are no good men left.
and maybe make money writing some fantasy explanation that blames men, and does not actually try to connect any real dots
you can get them on amazon now
Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman
if your a guy.. well you can go to the eternal bachelor… or many others [he is a bit colorful… but he and lots of others resonate the same view of things and some do some serious research on origins and things]
eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2007/11/there-are-no-good-men-left.html
eternalbachelor.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/sexual-harassment-in-the-classroom/
ah well.. this is probably way too long…
i will get shock when i press the submit… sigh
National Review
Cain Is Guilty Until Proven Innocent, Feminists Say
By Suzanne Venker
http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/281891/cain-guilty-until-proven-innocent-feminists-say/suzanne-venker
That women now have the power to ruin men’s lives using a boatload of resentment but no evidence to speak of tells you all you need to know about feminism and its effect on our society. Once a free country, in which a person was innocent until proven guilty, America has devolved into a country hell-bent on getting even with men – and what better way to do this than using sex as a weapon?
she has an interesting book too
The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say
and for a topic that spans failure to launch and other tales from moms basements…
Why men won’t grow up
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=272173
After several decades of this, I think it might be refreshing to decide, at the very least, that (a) jokes and innuendos are not actionable; (b) there should be some objective standards for what is an offense rather than mere discomfort of the accuser; and (c) the victim is not automatically always right, or even always a victim.
b and C are considered victories and cornerstones of the feminists. you are not going to change those without getting rid of them… they got the keys and power and are moving it even more along…
before you get 10 feet on the above your going to lose ground on the new changes to homicide laws… where now they are kind of formalizing the kill your abusive husband and get off with lighter sentence
Battered women who kill to be main beneficiaries as homicide law changes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/sep/30/murder-law-reform
on another note in the same category
si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/RV-AB752A_MANNI_G_20110218190605.jpg
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html
“Still, for these women, one key question won’t go away: Where have the good men gone?”
i dont know… maybe the guys see what happens to Cain (or DSK, or the Duke lacross team, or or or) and say, hey… nintendo is more fun, chatters less, is cheaper, and and and and.. 🙂
and not having extra assets is good too, as the gold diggers dont turn you into a indentured servant complete with debtors prison..
you see.. those guys? are no longer the rugged passionate individualists who want to carve out a place in the world and so on..
they are adapting to the landscape and finding that they dont need to earn if they are not providing, or will be forced to…
and they are avoiding being with someone who has such advantage that two presidential candidates were neutralized by such..
if they can do that, what can they do to a nobody for spite… many would be VERY surprised, disbelieving, and more..
Is Tom here?
Have you seen sexual harrassment charges at work? I have.
Have you seen an ugly divorce at work? I have.
You can actually lose your kids and never having done anything wrong. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it.
If I were president I’d make some HUGE changes to the courts and the legal system that affected:
1) Awards to companies if they win
2) Divorces needing actual proof and bringing back jail time for perjury in divorce cases (this does not happen currently)
3) Extrordinary overhauls to employment law
4) Environmental lawsuits
Shakedowns would be a lost art. There would be no more allowances for somebody to make an accusation unless it were true.
Truth and clarity would prevail.
Clarity is so important to me.
BTW, I’ve been listening to Dennis Prager on this issue. He is powerful and he thinks like I do to a tee.
Journalists would need to find a new job if they can’t be clear and truthful. 🙂
Over the course of his 30 year professional career, I’ve seen my husband accused of both racism and sexual harassment on the job.
In the first instance, he advised a black co-worker not to cross the street near the office building because she’d likely get a ticket. She was a noted malcontent and he would have been wiser to avoid speaking with her at all. She claimed he called her “the N word.” It took three witnesses to their brief conversation to vindicate him.
In the second instance, during a meeting he suggested that two women subordinates be ready to assume greater responsibility should the opportunity arise, because “You never know, the underwriters could be hit by a bus at lunchtime and you’d suddenly be offered their jobs.” The women claimed he said the only way they’d get promoted would be if their superiors were hit by a bus. Again, witnesses to the conversation were able to vindicate him.
Both situations involved several meetings with human resources, documentation, and the stress of dealing with the accusers after being vindicated (that was the most unpleasant part).
These instances proved to my husband and I that there are women in the workplace who are hellbent on being victims, and will gladly use their hapless male coworkers as fodder.
Unless Herman Cain has an illegitimate kid, a la John Edwards, or is doing some intern, a la Bill Clinton, I could not give a damn what “harassment” he’s accused of.
Back in the ’90’s, the management at the company where I was employed were required to attend a sexual harrassment seminar. The one thing I took away, and still remember to this day, is this scenario:
Company A hires Company B to perform some construction work outside of a high ranking officer’s office. Company B subcontracted out the work to Company C. Now there was an employee of Company C who hit on the executive’s admin assistant, even after being politely told that she was not interested. This continued throughout the day.
The woman may claim sexual harrassment against not only Company C, whoes employee couldn’t take no for an answer, but she can also sue Company B and her own employer, Company A. And have good odds on winning.
Michelle Bachman could have some fun with this issue. Maybe release a statement something like….
” Herman can actually be seen on tape at the end of one debate physically grabbing my hand firmly and admitting he found ample portions of my policies to be irresistible”.
Jokes and innuendo are not technically actionable. It must be “severe and pervasive” as well as “‘unwelcome” (see the SNL skit with Tom Brady sexual harrassment training: be attractive.). But…while the law carves out a somewhat narrower area of speech, corporations then need to protect against a wider area of speech and action so that they show that they have taken steps to prevent the speech and action from becoming severe and pervasive. In Jones v. Clinton, the SC ruled that dropping your pants in front of an employee and making a, um, solicitation, one time does not constitute “severe and pervasive.” But if a company allowed that to go unpunished, it would be shown to have contributed to that hostile work environment and incur liability the next time it happens. Part of the problem is the hypersensitivity of corporations (likely a rational reaction) to law suits.
So, when Cain says “I never sexually harassed anyone”, even if he did make inappropriate statements or gestures (I still doubt this), he is being truthful. It’s a term of legal art.
But again, this was more than a settlement for a sexual harassment claim. The complainant left employment after reaching an agreement on her claim. That is unusual and perhaps speaks of other problems.
The first SC case to outline sexual harassment was Meritor Savings Bank. It was a terrible case. Yes, the man was a pig, but the women voluntarily went along with the relationship- for quite a long time. She then turned around and said she was coerced because of the very nature of the supervisor-employee relationship, and sexual harassment was born of Title VII.
I recall my time working in a factory during the late 90’s. The plant had a list of words and names that CANNOT BE SPOKEN words and names like, Pussy, pussy cat, tail etc, Cock in all it’s attachments ie: cock fight etc. Beaver, Raccoon or coon, monkey, ape, the N word along with cow (something about Breasts) There was a set of two letters also banned “GD” short for a curse using Gods name.
It was a long list and had it been followed not much conversation would have been had.
Sexual harrassment was the main charge there mostly leadmen and bosses.
Things like this get out of hand and actually become the problem rather than a fix.
By the way, more victims of sexual harassment claims in the workplace need to sue for defamation. If you can prove it to be false, definitely take action, even if you know you can get no money from the person (maybe attorney’s fees is enough). That should help strike the proper balance. And a legal action cannot be used as evidence of “retaliation” for the initial claim.
I was the target of an extortion attempt by an ex-girlfriend who had been fired from her job for cause and decided to take revenge by alleging sexual harassment since I had a much higher ranking at our mutual employer. I was not, as it happened, in a position of authority over her and the relationship had started and ended at her whim. I chose to hire counsel and oppose the blackmail. I never heard back from her attorney. This may or may not apply to Cain’s situation, but it is always worth considering the option of fighting back rather than taking the easy way out and regretting it later.
You can lose a job these days for things having nothing whatsoever to do with sexual harassment. All a woman has to do these days is cklaim you said something she was offended by of a sexual nature (commenting, for example, on the attractiveness of a model or actress, and I’m not speaking of anything crude mind you — “she’s pretty but I’m not really interested in blondes, myself”) can get you fired in many venues.
The current system is just flat-out wrong.
Horseshit… sorry: “Equine Excreta”.Many companies will fire you at the drop of a hat if a woman makes an allegation, after making no effort whatsoever to verify the claims. Just depends on how much they appreciate you/like you/want you.
I’ve seen where some guys who can make blatantly racist or sexist statements and no one says a word, while others have gotten fired for making far lesser comments (cf. the comment alluded to in the above entry) in passing.
Horseshit… sorry: “Equine Excreta”.Many companies will fire you at the drop of a hat if a woman makes an allegation, after making no effort whatsoever to verify the claims. Just depends on how much they appreciate you/like you/want you.
I’ve seen where some guys who can make blatantly racist or sexist statements and no one says a word, while others have gotten fired for making far lesser comments (cf. the comment alluded to in the above entry) in passing.
Geez, what a load of tripe.
The difference would be that being provoked to anger isn’t something one has as much control over as being subject to a steady reign of violence.
Women who hang around too long and then kill aren’t in the same class as a man who is poked and prodded until they lose their cool and lash out. The woman always has the option to leave. That she fails to act on it endlessly should not provide an excuse for murder.
IGotBupkis: Actually, a lot of men who are violent abusers threaten to track down and kill the woman and/or children if she leaves. And—I don’t have time to find the stats right now—I think the statistics bear this out, finding that a woman is most at risk of being killed after she leaves, especially within the first few months.
Women in those situations feel they have no other way out. My personal opinion is that they should still risk it and leave, and hope to change identities or go far away or stay in a shelter for a while and get help to do those things, rather than to kill the husband. But it often isn’t as simple as “why doesn’t she just leave, and she’ll be okay.”